جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « hobbes » در نشریات گروه « علوم سیاسی »

This article reviews the book Democracy and Moral Conflict Written by Robert B. Talisse. Talisse in the crisis of democracy, which is a Hobbesian natural state, offered the alternative to the standard views of democratic political philosophers who believe that the democracy derived from some decidedly moral commitment. But he argued, there is good reason to think that, under current conditions, these values among citizens are essentially controversial. By contrast, the case for democratic politics which he proposed in this book draws from principles that are epistemic rather than moral and he called it folk epistemology. Talisse is a liberal democratic philosopher, but his method and solution to this crisis is Hobbesian, the separation of ethics and politics. However, he did not propose 'absolute state', but 'dialogical democracy'. Hence, a dialogical democracy requires the state to pursue the cultivation of certain epistemic capabilities among its citizens. Talisse's alternative is Hobbesian: New Leviathan.

Roman Seljuk or Anatolian Seljuk refers to the group of famous Seljuk sultans who, during the time of Suleiman bin Qatlamesh, gained the lands beyond Rome and Anatolia from Malik Shah, and after the fall of the Seljuks of Iran, they ruled in the northwest of Iran for a long time. The meeting of this dynasty with the Mongols in 629 and coming under the citizenship of Ilkhans is one of the main topics of this article. The results of this research show that from the perspective of Thomas Hobbs's political theory, Ilkhans were able to overcome the Roman Seljuks by relying on autocratic rule. In addition, the confrontation and interaction between Ilkhans and Seljuks can be evaluated with Hobbes's critical approach. The current research aims to investigate Hobbes's theory of government and power with an analytical and explanatory method, to examine the action and interaction of the Ilkhans and Seljuks of Anatolia.In addition, the confrontation and interaction between Ilkhans and Seljuks can be evaluated with Hobbes's critical approach. The current research aims to investigate Hobbes's theory of government and power with an analytical and explanatory method, to examine the action and interaction of the Ilkhans and Seljuks of Anatolia.

By asking about security in Hobbes's political philosophy, this article addresses why power and security are intertwined in the modern state and the virtuous role of human beings in providing and promoting security in society has been neglected. In other words, insecurity in the contemporary era, and especially in the wake of the formation of global experiences of Leviathan as the only legitimate and effective power structure in societies and international relations, rather than resulting from power struggles between states are rooted in Hobbes's anthropology, which is itself the theoretical foundation of the modern state. Using this theory of critical reconstruction based on Hobbes's internal logic of anthropology, this study tries to introduce insecure and insecure sources in Hobbes's view of human beings and Identity. The results of this study show that Hobbes's anthropology, as the theoretical basis of the structure of today's modern state, makes man an inherently dangerous, anxious, selfish, and at the same time legitimate and justified being in achieving all his desires. This type of anthropology is the main source of insecurity production, the consequences and effects of which are reflected in Leviathan.

In the twentieth century, with the publication of the works of Max Weber, Schmitt, Löwith, Voegelin, and Blumenberg, there was a great deal of interest in exploring the theological roots of modernity and modern political thought, and many of the leading texts of the early modern period were reinterpreted. This article seeks to highlight the importance of this concept in the history of political thought by addressing the theological foundations of the figure of "Katechon", first mentioned in Paul's Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. The main premise of the article is that modern political thought has always been rooted in Christian theology and has sought to legitimize itself by secularizing theological ideas. In the meantime, under the influence of Karl Schmitt and his particular and authoritarian reading of the concept of Katechon, political theology is often seen as blocking the project of liberation, but thinkers such as Agamben interpret the concept of Katechon under the concept of salvation. It paves the way for the democratic formulation of political theology.

The question of “what is the good?” was the main characteristic of the Socratic political philosophy. However, the modern political philosophy had to pass this question and like its enemy (namely revealed theology) present a definite and tangible definition of “the good”. In other words, they had to show that philosophy, in addition to being the authoritative source of knowledge, can and must be the basis for promoting human life and a guide for attaining the good in practice. The role of Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Spinoza from this point of view is so prominent. It seems that the good they defended, was the true origin of the values of a liberal democratic regime. These philosophers recognized that the necessity of the dogmatic definition of the good necessitates a theological-rhetorical expression to persuade the addresses. Therefore, without comprehending this theological-rhetorical backbone, the values of a liberal democratic regime cannot be understood completely. The modern political philosophy, on other hand, is the forbear of modern political science that its main subject is behavior and action of the citizens in a liberal democratic regime. Therefore, we can say that modern political science cannot be comprehended completely without contemplating on the ambivalent effort of these philosophers: on the one hand, their theological defense of the liberal democratic values, and on the other hand, their defense of a new scientific politics distinguished radically from ancient political knowledge.

In the paleontology of the theory or school of realism, ،thomas Hobbes, Machiavelli, or in classical texts, the Indian Catilia, the Sean Dezoo school in China, and in Islamic thought, Ibn Muqaffa are generally cited. 1930 and 1940 followed the outbreak of the two great world wars. At a time when, following the failure of idealistic ideas to prevent wars and conflicts, the need for academic circles to have a new and fact-based perspective was felt. Correct realistic interpretations of Thomas Hobbes by rereading numerous works by Thomas Hobbes. This means that Hobbes is not as close to a realistic understanding of international relations as is often thought. Given Hobbes 'conception of man and the natural state, the formation of Leviathan, and the law of nature, it can be argued that Hobbes' understanding of international relations is not always conflicting and that there is a possibility of regulating conflicting interests, an interpretation that leads to unity and cooperation. In international relations. The idea of ​​this paper is that the result of Hobbes's writings is that Hobbes is not only a realist, but also a rationalist. The method of this writing is based on documentary and library methods and text analysis.

The concept of "sovereignty" is one of the key concepts of modern political philosophy. This concept, systematically explained for the first time in the modern age by Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes, implies the meanings like absolute and legitimate power over the legislation process. The prevailing attitude in political thought, due to the very pioneering of Bodin and Hobbes in explaining the meaning of sovereignty, views this concept as an innovative concept which is discovered in the modern age. This article tries to demonstrate, however, the concept of sovereignty is raised from Christian theology and one of its main topics: The concept of "judgement". Therefore, the systematization of the term "sovereignty" by Bodin and Hobbes never means that they invented this concept as a wholly modern one. For this purpose, this article searches for the meaning of the term "judgement" in the Old Testament and the New Testament, and, on the basis of the prominent commentaries of the Scriptures, seeks to show that this concept has three relatively distinct but intertwined meanings. These three meanings are "Legislation", "Judgement in legal and judicial sense" and "Sovereignty", all of which accords with the features of the notion of sovereignty in the modern sense of the word. Consequently, it can be said that, the formation of modern sovereignty has not happened in discontinuity with Christian theology, but in continuity with it.

The mainstream approach in interpreting the Rousseau's political philosophy is one that stipulates the understanding of Rousseau to the understanding of his "essential distinction" from Hobbes and Lock. Therefore in this approach, the understanding of the modern idea of citizenship which underwent a fundamental evolution through Rousseau's philosophy is dependent on the understanding of that "essential distinction". But we should not ignore the tight relationship between the Rousseau's political philosophy and Hobbes's new political design, in spite of its complexity and multilayered character. In fact Rousseau just like his modern predecessors confirms that human being in naturally apolitical and that for analyzing human condition we must begin with the idea of "individual". In this article, our purpose is to show that the understanding of Rousseau's political philosophy and thereby understanding of the idea of citizenship in Rousseau's thought is comprehensible more through the development and the radicalization of Hobbes's idea of the individual than through the "essential distinction". According to our reasoning the idea of "the individual possessed unconditional right in the state of nature" as the foundation of the new approach to politics is just the same idea hinders us to take this "distinction" into account as an "essential" one. Therefore what distinguishes Rousseauian citizenship from Hobbesian citizenship is the development and the radicalization of Hobbesian premises and leading to the conception of citizenship turned into second nature of the modern man.

The purpose of the present study is to review the role of Hobbes on the formation of the theoretical principles of the modern state. The method of study is descriptive-analytic and the results showed that by justifying the absolute state, Hobbes indeed justified some elements of the modern state too. In Hobbes' view, the absolute authority of a leader for establishing order and preventing chaos leads to an absolute state in which there is no competitive power in front of a king to limit his authority. Therefore, the theory of Hobbes for the rational justification of the absolute state, involves some elements of the modern state. The exclusive legitimacy of the government in using force, totalitarianism, the churches' obedience to the civil ruler, natural freedom and equality of people in society, and the state legitimacy over the satisfaction of citizens are among some important impacts of Hobbes on the modern state.

The addition of the term "international security" has also not helped to define peace. In addition to the concept of peace, this paper examines the political philosophy of peace from the point of view of Hobbes and kant. Hobbes, in his pessimistic look considered peace as a fake. A view that led to political realism and to realpolitik.Realpolitik emphasis the imposition of criminal justice for victims of human rights violation and do not punish perpetrators of international crimes. But Kant pursued a lasting peace with his moral philosophy as a result of respect for human rights. The notion that crystallized political liberalism and the UN's search for negative peace in efforts to achieve positive peace through criminal justice for the victim societies of widespread human rights violation.The function that led to the establishment of international criminal tribunals and international criminal court.This suggests that future of international law inextricably linked to the promotion of human rights.

Sovereignty issue has been the topic of long debates where the follow-up of interpretations of this concept in scripture has led to a variety of votes. Thomas Hobbes, the sovereignty theorist, has had a pivotal role in clarifying the relationship between Sovereignty and religion in the early era of modernism by interpreting Scripture based on his scientific method. This article highlights the transformation in the concept of natural rights as a bridge between sovereignty and religion in Hobbes's theory. In addition, this study corresponds to this concept with Hobbes's interpretation of Scripture and, thereby, it is claimed that Hobbes has embedded the main component of his theory, which is social contract, in reading the Scripture. Then, Hobbes interprets it in favor of a powerful ruling authority who is seeking for individual's peace and security and also the maintaining the individual's natural rights at large.

The understanding of the modern notion of citizenship is mostly based on the sociohistorical and partly legal approaches and the contribution of the philosophical approach is not as considerable as we think it deserves. We attempt in this article to take the Hobbesian roots of the modernist notion of citizenship into consideration from philosophical point of view. We think that Hobbes's political philosophy has the fundamental implications for the new notion of citizenship.These implications are so fundamental that we may speak about Thomas Hobbes as the founder of the modern idea of citizenship. It seems that there are two principles on which he grounded his status as the founder of the modern idea of citizenship:The first is the idea of "individual"; it is one of the most important rupture points that separate the new political philosophy from the pre-modern one and meanwhile the substantial backrest of the some new notions such as the modern citizenship. And the second is replacing the natural law by the natural right or subordinating the natural law to the natural right. This transfiguration led to the individual-based modern state. In this article, we will show that if we can suppose the idea of "the individual possessed unconditional right in the state of nature" as the foundation of the new approach to politics, then we can call Thomas Hobbes as the founder of modern citizenship because he was the original designer of this type of individuality from the political point of view.

Leviathan is one of the first modern political philosophy texts, which attempt to replace regular civil state of market society and the bourgeois state with the state of nature in which is war of all against each other. Now, the question is: Is civil state of Hobbes is free of violence? It seems that the transition from the state of nature to the civil state is not end of violence, but besides the obvious activist violence, it reinforces more hidden forms of violence including action-accepting and symbolic violence (Hypothesis). This article, in order to understanding and analyzing the types of violence in the civil state of Hobbes, uses the theoretical framework of Slavoj Zizek (theoretical framework). It seems that the origin of activist violence, action-accepting and symbolic in Hobbes's civil state can be found on several factors; The first is that the social phobia that is affected by the evil nature of human still continues in civil state. Second, in the civil state of Hobbes, the governor that has superior authority (sovereignty) is the exception. Third, the ruler for containing the unleashed violence of nature of state, resorts to the force of law, common law and morality, which itself is repulse, repression and Constraint. In other words, it makes a part of citizens in favor of other part, exclusion, repression or limit (the findings). The present article uses Text- author centered hermeneutic method (method).

Focusing on Hobbes’s description of human natural condition as "war against all" and "man is the wolf of man", this paper aims to answer the following main questions: Are there hidden aspects of violence in Hobbes's natural state? Where is the source of violence in Hobbes's natural state? Man or community? (Questions) The present paper uses the theoretical basis of Slavoj Zizek to analyze the forms of violence in natural state of Hobbes, which emphasizes upon tri-dimensional violence (apparent violence, hidden violence and non-symbolic violence), which in total consists of six types (theoretical basis). Hobbes's natural state of affairs is more than anything else associated with action and symbolic violence. What contributes to such violence rooted, on the one hand, in the nature of human evil that causes ongoing fear in society (the state of constant fear), and on the other hand, the lack of supreme authority that can control the causes of violence (the findings).The present study uses the text-based hermeneutic method (method).

Hobbes and Locke as the seventeenth century English philosopher put profound impact on the political thought, As far as they can, including the founders of the political philosophy of liberalism -that is now one of the most pervasive political doctrines- And the founders of the of nation-states current world system knew that the researching on the thought them make necessary. Hobbes and Locke, both in the philosophical and political thought are very similar to each other: both the empiricist and are of the companions social contract. However, though the two lived in a historical period and although it is a way to analyze a political system based on social contract theory, But the political system which was born out of a social contract, is very different. State of the Hobbes, is authoritarian government, but Locke's state is democratic political system, with popular aspects. The question of this paper is the reasons for differences in such analyze from State of the Hobbes and Locke? Asked in a paradigm framework of political thought and with content analysis method based on original works of Hobbes and Locke Is performed.

In the Ancient period religious knowledge system and classic political philosophy didnt in itself focus on security. Inward security in the pre-modern era, in fact, was rooted in the fatality that unavailable for the human being. They were lived in the spiritual atmosphere and believed in the divine destiny that flow over in the natural law and latent harmony in the universe in which definite his/her life and inward security. The Stoic philosophy, in addition, was based upon this order which linked to the Plato's and Aristotle's and Christianity philosophy, the later. In stead of the past, modern political philosophy that constructed the modern state was paying more attention on power and security.Here the purpose is reviewing what and how the transition occurred in the history of political thoughts and for doing it, it is necessary to definite how the men converted. Author by exploring how the modern mankind emerged in the west and explanting the characteristics of him/her is trying to form into the existence and evaluation of the political theory by referring to the two important thinkers: Machiavelli and Hobbes. Resulting that men by denying the gifted and destined order felt alone, and inevitably insecurity and unsafely made more important than. So security made way as the fireplace of the modern age.